The Iran-Israel tension, one of the most sensitive elements of the balance of power in the Middle East, turned into a hot war on June 13.
This war has an impact that directly concerns beyond the regional actors, and at this point, Russia’s ambivalent stance is important in terms of both regional and global geopolitical balances. Although Moscow’s approach to the Iran-Israel war is presented to the public as a policy of balance, it is actually based on aligning its strategic interests with the stance of the US (Trump administration).
This stance, presented as a balanced and cautious Russian policy, reflects Russia’s inability to openly take sides. This policy is consistent with Russia’s general foreign policy approach, which has long since lost its reflex to act as a great power. Russia positions itself as a balancing power rather than a great power and seeks to work with all actors in the Middle East. While Moscow has entered into a strategic cooperation agreement with Iran, it is also continuing its military coordination with Israel. This stance is a product of efforts to protect narrower strategic interests with both sides under the guise of neutrality.
The days when Russia and Iran came together on common ground to support Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria had passed. However, Israel’s operations against Iran’s military presence in Syria and the genocide in Gaza have created a complex equation for Russia. While Russia has sought to protect its interests in Syria, it has also continued its military coordination with Israel and has been unable to take a moral and political stance against the genocide in Gaza.
Russia considers the Iran-Israel war as a crisis that will shape the US position in the region, creating another narrow window of opportunity. Russia’s abandonment of Syria and Iran in return for a gain in Ukraine is a cheap bargaining process. On the other hand, while a possible energy crisis and increase in oil prices would provide Russia with short-term economic advantages, the contradiction in Russian policy highlights the narrow-minded nature of this policy.
Iran has long been considered an ally of Russia in the anti-American bloc, and the economic, energy, and defense strategies developed jointly by the two countries in response to sanctions imposed by the West were particularly noteworthy. However, the outbreak of the Iran-Israel war revealed Russia’s behind-the-scenes projections. It appears that while Russia was pursuing strategic cooperation with Iran, it was also pursuing a strategy of limiting Iran’s influence in the region. Clearly, from Russia’s perspective, Iran’s expansion of its sphere of influence in the Middle East and even its emergence as a nuclear power were seen as a threat to Russia’s own influence in the region. Therefore, Russia’s support for Iran has always been superficial, within certain limits, and driven by narrow interests. The Iran-Israel war has lifted the veil on Russia’s calculations.
It should be noted that while Russia signed strategic partnership agreements with Iran, it always acted pragmatically in its relations with Israel. Cooperation between Russia and Israel has always been strong in the areas of trade, technology, and energy, and Israel’s military operations in Syrian airspace have been coordinated with Russia. Therefore, it was not expected that Russia would distance itself from Israel and openly side with Iran. This is because Russia’s narrowing strategic window does not consider it rational to cool or sever relations with Israel.
As a result, Russia’s stance in the Iran-Israel war is shaped more by pragmatism, narrow interests, and a search for regional balance as an actor that has lost its global power status rather than by a desire to support its partner. While Moscow continues its strategic relationship with Iran in rhetoric, it is strengthening its diplomatic and security-focused relations with Israel on the field. It is not difficult to guess that this situation has developed within a mutual give-and-take relationship. Russia’s stance in the Iran-Israel war, which can be defined as “balancing”, essentially means abandoning its allies in exchange for gains it will achieve in Ukraine in agreement with the Trump administration. A country that pursues such harmonious policies with the US after Trump’s reelection is now losing its ability, to balance the US, which was valuable to Türkiye in the past.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
This article was originally published on ATASAM.
Featured image is from ATASAM
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.
No comments:
Post a Comment